Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Critical Chain estimating

Expand Messages
  • Steven Gordon
    I believe what you are talking about is Buffer Management , which is just one aspect of Critical Chain. I am not sure whether it is unique to Critical Chain,
    Message 1 of 44 , Jul 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I believe what you are talking about is "Buffer Management", which is just one aspect of Critical Chain. I am not sure whether it is unique to Critical Chain, but, as you have shown, it is quite valuable as an independent technique.

      The most characteristic aspect of Critical Chain, using task dependencies to plan in detail in what order resources should be applied to which tasks in order to complete the project as early as possible with the given resources, is antithetical to Scrum, at least according to my understanding of both.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Kevin Rutherford
      Sent: Mon 7/4/2005 11:19 AM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com; tocsoftware@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Critical Chain estimating

      Hi all,
      I know it's been covered a number of times before, but I just wanted to report on a real-life experience of Critical Chain estimating. On this particular project, just over a month ago, I decided to try an experiment. Our process involves taking user stories and breaking them down into small development tasks which, being small, should be relatively easy to estimate. But iteration after iteration we were squeezed at the finish post because some tasks had taken way too long. I had no idea what the cause might be, but in my mind I coupled it with the team's overall apparent lack of urgency. Things just drifted along.

      So just before the next iteration's planning meeting we had a team workshop. I explained the critical chain view of estimates <http://www.focusedperformance.com/articles/ccrisk2.html#2e_estimates> , and we decided to give it a go. The team recognised that historically all of its task estimates had been conservative. Fear of being late had made us create estimates that were universally over at the 90-100% end of the range of possibilities for each task. That is, each estimate created a 90-100% chance of "being right", of finishing within the estimated time. So we had stacked each iteration with 15-20 small tasks, each of which had only a small chance of being late. And each time, one or two were indeed late. No-one knew why, and yet those few late tasks ate up the iteration's slack. Every time.

      So we removed the pressure on any individual task to be brought in "on time", and we switched to estimating every task at the 50% point. That is, we did our usual conservative estimates and then halved them! The results were amazing, and have been repeated now over three iterations:

      Most tasks are now finished by the 50% point (partly because the developers treat the estimate as a timebox - "I'll do what I can in that amount of time, and then see where we are.") And those that go over just eat into the project buffer a little. In fact, we're now getting a whole load more tasks done in the same time. Critical chain estimating has eliminated the effect of Parkinson's Law and simultaneously created a sense of urgency.

      I'd love to know whether this works or has worked for other software teams.



    • Ron Jeffries
      ... Yes. I think I should have gone above them all, to the CIO. That would have brought the situation to a head, one way or another. ... That s interesting ...
      Message 44 of 44 , Jul 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wednesday, July 6, 2005, at 5:03:19 PM, Simon Baker wrote:

        > The situation you describe is indeed similar. I was both the coach
        > and acting scrummaster. My difficulty was, i couldn't escalate to
        > management because, sadly, they really didn't want to know. They had
        > bigger issues deciding on strategies and company direction. It was a
        > huge time of flux. As i intimated, in the situation a decision had
        > to be made given the bigger picture, and unfortunately i was the
        > only one inline to make it. Ultimately, scrum did fail in this
        > environment because of the politics.

        Yes. I think I should have gone above them all, to the CIO. That
        would have brought the situation to a head, one way or another.

        > As an independent coach, the biggest challenges i encounter usually
        > relate to product owners.

        That's interesting ... how about a new thread on that?

        Ron Jeffries
        It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare,
        it is because we do not dare that they are difficult. --Seneca
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.